1. Tendulkar - 100(782 innings)
2. Ponting - 71(668 innings)
3. Sangakkara - 63(666 innings)
4. Kallis - 62(617 innings)
5. Jayawardene - 54(725 innings)
6. Lara - 53(521 innings)
7. Amla - 49(343 innings)
8. Dravid - 48(605 innings)
9. ABD - 45(441 innings)
10. Kohli - 42(300 innings)
Message Board Archives
List of international hundreds...
In reply to Devin
Amla is still ahead.
In reply to Devin
only 58 more to Tendy lol
he went pass shiv deh
In reply to Courtesy
It's amazing how good Amla's record is, and yet I find him incredibly ordinary. He makes sure to capitalize on weak teams, I'll give him that much.
I won't even bother to mention him in the same breath as VMFK. Can't hold a candle to him.
In reply to Devin
Don't do this brother.
In reply to Devin
Tests
Aus - 5
Eng - 6
Ind - 5
NZ - 4
Pak - 2
SL - 2
WI - 1
Bang -1
Zim - 0
In reply to doosra
9 have come against India, Lanka, Windies and Bangladesh.
Post the ODI tons as well.
In reply to Devin
I won't even bother to mention him in the same breath as VMFK. Can't hold a candle to him.
Brother your criticism of Alma has already been made invalid.
In reply to Devin
100s against India in India are easy 100s?
oh my
In reply to doosra
If he plays for 10 years and has some luck on his side with regards to injuries, he should be able to break Tendy's record, or at least get close.
In reply to doosra
Did he score them on featherbeds or rank turners?
In reply to Courtesy
Is that right, how so? Do you realize that Amla's name is never mentioned alongside the very best in the game, despite his numbers?
In reply to Devin
the 100 100s is yuuuuugeeee
In reply to Devin
i can't remember
In reply to Devin
Brother, you can make this statement to a casual follower of international cricket...but not disCourtesy.
Why South Africas Hashim Amla sits among one-day crickets best ever.
Don't waste your time, just read the first line of the referenced article IF your eyes are open.
In reply to Courtesy
Is he better than Kohli? Yes or no?
In reply to Devin
I am not going there. You may wish to develop criteria for "better" that we can agree upon, then we may carry this thread forward in another direction.
In reply to Courtesy
Stupes. Look, no one in the world would pick Amla ahead of Kohli in any format of the game. He has lead South Africa to nothing while having a great bowling unit and an all time great batsman to partner him.
Kohli has a better average in all three formats. Kohli is more devastating, has more strokes, is the greatest match-winner of all time, and doesn't regularly get bowled down like a dunce.
In reply to Devin
Did you read the referenced article? Any untruths in the article?
Remove your head from your arse and stop belittling other cricketers' achievements to promote Kholi. This is not healthy.
Dis done.
In reply to Courtesy
I am not belittling. My eyes tell me that I've never seen anything special from Amla. Everytime I watch him bat, he fails, and is usually bowled down like a clown.
His record says he is a great batsman. I won't dispute that, but he is nowhere near Kohli's class as a batsman.
In reply to Devin
Make up your mind...are you confused, or are you vacillating when confronted with the facts?
Which of the above is correct?
Have a great day.
Amla is a proven great batsman, we don't need to tear down players achievements to big up others.
Interesting top 10 : 1 Aussie 1 Windies 0 brits 2 Lankans 0 paks
In reply to doosra
Aus - 5
Eng - 6
Ind - 5
NZ - 4
Pak - 2
SL - 2
WI - 1
Bang -1
Zim - 0
Devin is having a TOLDUSO moment, putting stuff out there that can be easily disproved.
I asked to provide the ODI hundreds. Haven't seen them yet.
I'll help you guys out.
14 of Amla's 23 ODI hundreds have come against Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Ireland, Netherlands, Zimbabwe and West Indies.
His average over those 47 matches is 67.43.
His overall average is 51.33. But no one will point that out, and none of the analysts or commentators are aware of this.
Against Australia, India, Pakistan, England, and New Zealand, he averages 44.06 with 9 centuries from 90 matches.
In reply to Courtesy
Alastair Cook may surpass Tendy's test runs record. Most people find him ordinary.
There are many great batsmen who were ordinary to the eye, or weren't match winners or game changers.
Shiv, Boycott for example.
Many found Kallis and Waugh robotic.
If you take a handful of great batsmen and you can't separate them through the use of statistics, then what comes next? Match winning ability and aesthetics, no?
In reply to Courtesy
Answer the question, Amla or Kohli?
The list.
Link Text
Just to break Amla's ODI numbers down a tad more; he has scored 14 tons against the bums in 47 matches, but just 9 from 90 matches against the top teams.
In reply to Devin
Why don't you park your ass in a corner. I quoted you saying that based on his record Alma is great.
Brownie points just don't cut and if you want me to quote brownie points I can:
Amla's hundreds to innings ratio is better than Kholi's...14.28 and 14 respectively...plus more runs and not playing cricket on all these featherbed pitches, and he has scored a triple century.
Why don't you accept that Alma is great and Kholi is great.
In reply to Courtesy
They are both great, with one really knowing how to capitalize against $hit teams. You still ain't answering the question, and I wasn't the one who felt the need to compare one with the other. Who is the better batsman? Amla or Kohli?
In reply to Courtesy
Amla is still ahead.
In reply to Devin
And that post above was in reference to the first set of data you provided. I merely deliberately commented that "Amla is still ahead"...it's purely a statistical fact from the data you provided, which cannot and should not be debated or refuted by any dispassionate folk.
Amla's 100's to innings ratio is better... you dummy.
In reply to Courtesy
Because he has scored a bunch of tons against bums, yuh jackass.
Kohli has a higher average at every level of cricket. FC, List A, ODI, T20, Test.
And to go back to my point about Amla always getting bowled down:
18.6% of Amla's dismissals have come from being bowled down.
6% of Kohli's dismissals have come from being bowled down.
While Amla's ratio is marginally better, Kohli's average is 4+ runs higher(52.75 vs 48.65) across all formats
In reply to Devin
Brother that's why I ask you to develop criteria which is properly weighted to appraise the two options.
Mature and rationale people don't just take shit from their asses without any scientific basis to appraise a given situation.
In reply to Devin
And that's the point. You just don't selectively pull out data or tidbits from a given set of data and use it as gospel. You have to eliminate any biases...and "see the wood from the trees".
You don't have to trash Alma to put Kholi on a pedestal.
In reply to Devin
18.6% of Amla's dismissals have come from being bowled down.
6% of Kohli's dismissals have come from being bowled down.
Am I arguing with a facting infant?...incredible.
Dis done. Go argue with persons of your ilk.
In reply to Courtesy
Can a knowledgeable person like yourself explain why Amla gets bowled so frequently?
In reply to Courtesy
You keep saying "dis done" without answering any questions. What is done?
In reply to Devin
Oh fact man...can you tell me why an expert fisherman does catch sprat a lot of the time.
"I wonder why the grass is green....who taught the birds to build their nest...or when the moon is not quite round where can the missing bit be found...?
How many times have you seen Virat Kohli playing wide balls with the bat away from his body to the quicks, only to get out caught between the wicket keeper and gully?
My only option left on this thread is to ridicule you.
And now, the answer to your question: The number of times Amla was bowled the balls he received were unplayable. And yes, if a batsman gets bowled, it's because he cannot bat or he is not a great batsman...what a correlation...You skunt.
Michael VaughanVerified account
‏@MichaelVaughan
Best Test player ... KOHLI
Best ODI player ... KOHLI.
Best T20 player ... KOHLI
RETWEETS
3,023
LIKES
3,730
9:50 AM - 15 Jan 2017
In reply to Courtesy
I saw Amla repeatedly being bowled down by Indian pacers in South Africa during a test series. Pitched up and straight, bowled down. That was enough for me.
In reply to Devin
And Vaughn's tweet says that Amla is not a great batsman? You skunt.
In reply to Devin
Does it tell you the number of times Amla pulverized the same bowlers who bowled him.
Yes... Amla gets bowled because he is not a great batsman...only Kholi is great.
You myopic skunt.
................
Btw, I am glad I took you down this road. You should have checked that Kohli was not ahead of Amla in the stats you provided when you started the thread.
And further, you should have stopped for a minute to see that I was taking you down a road fraught with peril. I set you up for a precipitous fall.
Do have a wonderfall afternoon.
In reply to Courtesy
Listen up. I posted some numbers and your initial response was to tell me that Amla is ahead of Kohli. I took it a step further and told you that Amla is not in Kohli's class. I asked you which batsman is better. You are yet to answer.
I showed you that the only reason Amla has a marginally better century ratio is because he scored several tons against lowly ranked teams, some of them aren't even Test playing nations.
Aside from that, Kohli has better averages across the board, is a far greater match winner, is ranked higher in all formats, is rated higher by just about everyone. In fact, I don't know when last Amla was in the conversation.
I haven't even bothered to compare their averages when chasing.
In reply to Devin
Why you took it a step further? What was the reason if not to satisfy an inner and latent lust for Kholi.
"Amla is ahead" was deliberately posted to taunt and lure you.
My comment was never about a comparison between the two in terms of "better". It was based on the cold naked stats you provided. Why didn't you just acknowledge the fact?
Your ego is too big and I just preyed on it. "Kholi must be first..." in your Kohli circumscribed world.
Your willingness and haste to kiss Kholi's ass is irresistible on your part and this leads you to be clouded in your judgement of anything else about him.
You were left trying to refute a simple fact from the data you provided which is irrefutable.
Be careful next time and don't be too quick to rush to judgement.
Btw, did you know Amla was ahead (conversion rate) when you provided the stats to start the thread?
In reply to Courtesy
Of course I knew that. I've posted the list several times. I also know that Amla only averages 41.88 batting second with just 5 centuries.
Just like I know that Amla has cashed in against the lower ranked teams in the world, some of them not even being Test playing nations.
Kohli, on the other hand, averages 64.30 batting second with 17 tons.
Dis truly done.
In reply to Devin
I only ask about Amla. Look how De hole post above is about Kohli.
You cyan help it, can you?
In summary, Title of thread: "List of international hundreds..."
Fact: "Amla is still ahead."
Now go and take a lick on that fact...
In reply to Courtesy
Ahead because he's played more matches. Who will be ahead when it's all said and done?
In reply to Devin
No it's a snapshot of where we are now and with a very large sample size at that.
"Hundreds to innings ratio" is a level playing field.
Amla: 14.28
Kohli: 14.00
Why are you so dunce?
In reply to Courtesy
His average over those 47 matches is 67.43.
His overall average is 51.33. But no one will point that out, and none of the analysts or commentators are aware of this.
Against Australia, India, Pakistan, England, and New Zealand, he averages 44.06 with 9 centuries from 90 matches.
In reply to Courtesy
In reply to Devin
His average over those 47 matches is 67.43.
His overall average is 51.33. But no one will point that out, and none of the analysts or commentators are aware of this.
Against Australia, India, Pakistan, England, and New Zealand, he averages 44.06 with 9 centuries from 90 matches.
Oh my golly.
Take one more lick on Kohli's hole...rim his kakahole again.
In reply to Courtesy
There is no need to get nasty.
In reply to Devin
If it's not familiar Kohli territory to you, then accept my apology.
In reply to Courtesy
You like nuff shite eh
In reply to Devin
I don't consider myself an expert like you.
Can't we appreciate greatness as it manifest itself, or must we always deny our sensibilities to conform to "greatness" as we are conditioned to accept????
Virat is a boss right now No sense denying that...the man is the top of the class.
In reply to Devin
I am a huge Kholi fan, and he is the best, but u dont diss Hashim who is a great player as well. Hashim's conversion rate is the best on that list!
In reply to jballer84
Thank you sah.
And that's the message that the tunnel visioned one failed to appreciate.
All I have said is this:
His average over those 47 matches is 67.43.
His overall average is 51.33. But no one will point that out, and none of the analysts or commentators are aware of this.
Against Australia, India, Pakistan, England, and New Zealand, he averages 44.06 with 9 centuries from 90 matches.
His success against lower ranked teams has enabled him to have a fantastic ratio of hundreds per innings. I don't know what's hard to understand about that fact. 14 tons from 47 matches against the worst teams in the world, 9 from 90 against the best.
The minute someone posts something complimentary about Virat, some jackass has to come post about his record in England from ONE TOUR. Amla has made an ODI career out of dominating the lowly ranked teams.
He still averages 50 in Test cricket, and oddly enough while he's a more accomplished Test cricketer than Virat, Kohli is the one with the better ratio of 100's per innings.
In reply to Devin
Skunt, the entire thread is there so readers can decide.
You sought to downplay the achievements of Amla by referring to him as "ordinary" while elevating your man on a pedestal.
Dangerous behaviour...dishonest even.
In reply to Courtesy
Asshole, I said I find him ordinary. That is my opinion, because nothing that I've seen from him has impressed me.
There is nothing ordinary about his career numbers. The numbers alone would suggest that he is a great. I've just dug a little deeper and revealed the full extent of those numbers.
Stop responding, you sound like Nick2020.
In reply to Devin
But later, under pressure, you admitted he is great...make up your mind.
Amla's numbers are great (conversion rate better than Kholi) but he is ordinary.
You only have eyes for Kohli...you skunt.
Remove the mote from your eyes.
Amala is a class batsman like Kohli. And no unbiased cricket fan will doubt this...well unless...
In reply to Courtesy
His numbers are great, I find nothing special about his batting and when you research his ODI numbers, they suggest that he's been average to good against the best, and spectacular against weak teams.
Off the top of my head, here are the batsmen I've enjoyed watching:
Aravinda Da Silva
Kumar Sangakkara
Mahela Jayawardene
Yousuf Youhana
Sachin Tendulkar
VVS Laxman, at times
Kevin Pietersen
I'll throw in two very unusual names:
Stephen Fleming from New Zealand
Greg Blewett from Australia
As far as batsmen who were before my time:
Sunil Gavaskar
Graeme Pollock
Alvin Kallicharan
Modern day batsmen:
Virat Kohli
Ajinkya Rahane
Kane Williamson
Virat Kohli
Ab De Villiers(at times)
Virat Kohli
Virat Kohli
People carry on about Hooper, a man who spent most of his career averaging 35.
Some people on this MB think Bravo has the talent and ability to be as good as Kohli, Root and Williamson.
Most people don't find Jacques Kallis' batting appealing. There have been heaps of great batsmen who many didn't find particularly attractive in terms of strokeplay or capturing their attention.
In reply to Courtesy
It's interesting that you're just looking at Amla's overall numbers, but you can't dispute the stats I've provided.
You said Amla is ahead, I said Kohli is better. You still can't say who is better or who you'd choose, and it's escalated to this.
In reply to Devin
What is your thread title and are you willing to be lazer focused on the subject matter of your own thread?
What was the purpose of your thread?
What were you trying to achieve by your thread?
Was it to show that Kohli is the greatest or better?
Didn't I make a factual statement from the data you provided in your opening post?
Why din't you even acknowledge that Amla is ahead based on the data instead of opening up new tributaries..
Try for once on this thread to be honest.
I await honest answers.
In reply to Devin
Yes. I see you are losing badly in an argument.
Yet you claim you never lose because you properly pick your fights.
Who needs to live in reality when fiction is so fun?
In reply to Courtesy
I was waiting for the ref to stop the fight as poor Devin is refused to stay down.
Someone invoke the mercy rule.
You know powen and devin went to the same high school?
In reply to Courtesy
In reply to Courtesy
It's amazing how good Amla's record is, and yet I find him incredibly ordinary. He makes sure to capitalize on weak teams, I'll give him that much.
I won't even bother to mention him in the same breath as VMFK. Can't hold a candle to him.
Anyone who thinks Amla is ordinary should never claim to know cricket.
In reply to nick2020
I understand you went to the same school yet you are poles apart.
Devin is just a dishonest skunt whose job it is to keep Kholi's balls from dangling.
In reply to nick2020
I won't even bother to mention him in the same breath as VMFK. Can't hold a candle to him.
Yet he goes on to say later that Amla's overall average is above 51. and against what Devin considers 'strong teams' over 44.
Brother, this whole thread is so full of holes. I just ignored most of what the dumb ass wrote.
I hope he is honest enough though to answer the questions I put to him above.
In reply to Courtesy
Good Luck with that.
In reply to nick2020
I know he will respond. He will never leave his own thread with unanswered questions.
And while he is at it, I want him to do a comparative analysis of the test stats for both players under reference against all test playing countries.
In particular Devin, work out Kholi's average against what you refer to as "weak teams".
You asked for it Devin.
Let's get down to debating that Amla is "ordinary".
In reply to nick2020
I know enough about cricket to know that Kohli was always a better batsman than Bravo, always.
In reply to Devin
Ahh!!! You're back...Nice to have you around.
Please start with my list of questions.
In reply to Courtesy
You're yet to answer who is better and who you'd pick. You are yet to address the glaring truths that in ODI's, Hashim Amla averages 44 against Australia, England, India, New Zealand, and Pakistan. Yet Amla averages 67.43 against Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Ireland, Netherlands, Zimbabwe and West Indies.
14 of 23 ODI centuries have been scored against the weak teams.
In reply to Devin
14 of 23 ODI centuries have been scored against the weak teams.
Get forking lost...you obfuscating dishonest skunt.
Your yardstick now is lickit cricket.
My opinion of Amla being ordinary is my opinion of Amla being ordinary. Why? Because almost everytime I watch him bat, he fails, and in many of those instances he's been bowled down by straight pitched up deliveries that average batsmen would be able to defend.
As I said before, there are many great batsmen out there that people found ordinary. It's an aesthetic thing.
Aside from Chanderpaul supporters, who wants to watch him bat? His numbers are great, especially wrt West Indies cricket, but would most West Indians watch him bat? Even if it were for free on TV?
Kallis is the 2nd greatest all rounder of all time, statistically he may be the greatest. I don't think most people were riveted by Kallis' batting or bowling. Many would describe his batting as robotic.
My assertion that I find Amla ordinary is due to the fact that the majority of times I've seen him bat, he's failed.
I also don't have a lot of respect for a batsman who gets bowled down so often in Test cricket. I have a very old school mentality when it comes to batting in Test cricket. Rule #1, protect your stumps.
In reply to Devin
You are a forking dishonest, obfuscating skunt.
You are making such a statement above in this internet and communication age.
I am wasting my time.
Have a great night.
In reply to Courtesy
You dumb fu#king stupid skunt. This list is about international hundreds, cu#t.
23 of Amla's 49 hundreds have come in ODI cricket. In fact, a debate can be made that he's had a more successful career in ODI cricket. He is the fastest to 2,000, 3,000, 4,000, 5,000, and 6,000 ODI runs.
In reply to Devin
Oh so you read and you are quoting from the reference article I provided.
The writer is a "dumb fu#king stupid skunt too.
Let's have some more quotes from the article.
And yes "ordinary" players achieve such a feat.
Simpleton.
Good nite mate.
In reply to Courtesy
His average over those 47 matches is 67.43. 14 hundreds in 47 matches. That's a century 1 out of 3 times.
His overall average is 51.33. But no one will point that out, and none of the analysts or commentators are aware of this.
Against Australia, India, Pakistan, England, and New Zealand, he averages 44.06 with 9 centuries from 90 matches.
In reply to Devin
And Amla is equally woeful in test cricket (the real cricket)...would you say?
In reply to Devin
Kohli does not have the best Test career numbers and I do not know why this is such a problem for you. So instead you argue all over the place instead of accepting that.
Brilliant LO batsman and arguably the best. But Test? No.
Oh, and before I forget, Amla opens in ODI's, which obviously means he has more opportunities to score centuries than Kohli. That may be the reason why he has a marginally better ratio of hundreds per innings.
There are no downsides to facing the new ball?
You myopic skunt.
In reply to nick2020
I've always prided myself on judging talent with my eyes. Of course statistics play a role when it's time to get down to the nitty gritty of it all.
I trust my eyes. I saw something special in Kohli a long time ago, and I was calling Aaron Rodgers the best QB in the NFL before people even had him in the top 10. Of course I've been wrong in the past as well, because talent and aesthetic appeal alone won't take you to the top.
All I've maintained here is that Amla doesn't impress me because he's usually failed when I've watched him bat. What the hell do you want me to say? If I see a batsman bat 10 times, and his scores are 20, 1, 5, 18, 0, 50, 13, 17, 0, 32. Then what kind of impact is that going to make on me? Now if that batsman averages 50 in all formats, I have to give him his due and say that statistically he is very good, or perhaps even great.
Dishonesty at its best. The metric by which the batsmen are judged for being "ordinary".
"What a tangled web we weave..."
In reply to Courtesy
Of course there are downsides. Kohli bats at 3 with inconsistent openers, so he would know about that. But if you're chasing 210, then as an opener you know that if you see the team home, you'll probably have a century next to your name.
If you're batting at 3 and chasing that same total and your openers give the team a 20 or 30 run partnership, then there isn't much of an opportunity for the #3 batsman to score a ton.
In reply to Devin
Bother, direct your posts elsewhere. I have already concluded that you are a SIMPLETON.
In reply to Devin
Okay resolve this for me. You are maintaining that he is indeed ordinary?
Edit: My mistake. Incredibly ordinary?
In reply to nick2020
And he qualified "ordinary" at that.
Btw, that post was made after the reality of my post "Amla is better" hit him.
In reply to Courtesy
You're right, I'm being dishonest.
The last time India toured South Africa(2013), Amla averaged 14.33 in the Test series and was bowled three times in three innings.
The last time South Africa toured India, Amla averaged 16.85 from 7 innings with a highest score of 43.
He was bowled three times in seven innings.
In reply to Courtesy
Skunthole, you're still fu#king responding and asking me to direct my posts elsewhere?
In reply to Courtesy
The reality of what hit who? Jackass, Amla is not a better batsman than Kohli in any format.
In reply to Devin
Indeed you are. You are not using a representative sample... 3 innings...and yet Amla's overall average against India is 45.
...............
To continue with this line of argument, "the last time Kholi played against Bangladesh he averaged 14.00.
Is this where you want to go...selective skewed stats?
In reply to Courtesy
I gave you 10 innings vs India that span their last two encounters, one in 2013 in South Africa, and the other in 2015 in India.
From 10 innings, he was bowled 6 times and averaged 15 odd.
These are not random stats. That's when I saw him bat.
I suppose if someone saw Kohli in England during that one series, they'd think he was the worst batsman to have every played cricket.
How does a specialist batsman get bowled 6 times in 10 innings though? That is what I really want to know.
In reply to Devin
Ahha!!! Your best post.
Yep by your own metric.
The same metric you used to assess Amla's batsmanship.
Finally, the curtains have come down.
Dis done.
Nighty, nighty.
In reply to Courtesy
That's called a preemptive strike. At least Kohli wasn't being bowled down like a complete dunce. And at least Kohli has responded by pummeling all English bowlers for the past two months. One of them couldn't get him out or even beat his bat over the course of two matches, so he decided to feign injury and run home.
In reply to Devin
Is Amla incredibly ordinary?
In reply to nick2020
When I've seen him, he's been terribly ordinary. His record in ODI's against the best teams is also relatively ordinary, especially when you consider what his overall record is, and what he's done against the weaker teams.
In reply to nick2020
Given he hasn't dominated in ICC tournaments or not a huge draw in any of the famous 20/20 leagues, his limited overs' "prowess" is overstated and misleading..
In reply to Khaga
Surely by the lead post and data therein his prowess is not limited to limited overs.
In reply to Devin
Well how often have you seen Amla? I guess I can only say not enough because clearly the numbers do not lie.
But Devin you are going to find yourself between a rock and a hard place because you frequently post numbers to paint a picture yet you are saying the numbers in Amla's case do not paint the correct picture.
Where do you go from there?
In reply to nick2020
Well how often have you seen Amla?
#43
Search
Live Scores
- no matches